7 ms·

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollme

Unfortunately, these pieces could almost always be reduced to "housing costs". They address it a bit in this most recent one, but homelessness / school enrollment / natural population growth / middle class jobs / energy costs can all be traced back to the huge housing deficit that's accumulated over the past 30 or 40 years.

jandrese 5y ago
The article starts out talking about homelessness, high housing prices, and people leaving the state in droves, but then pivots to pinning the high energy rates on green energy initiatives. California has such a huge housing deficit at this point that people really have no option except to move out. The point where they are losing the population equivalent of 3 mid size cities every year while still maintaining a housing crisis.
- nomel 5y ago
  > has such a huge housing deficit And, that housing deficit probably won't be filled with anything affordable. Starting 2023, title 24 requires solar panels that cover the full annual energy usage of the home, along with battery storage. But, guess that's a drop in the bucket for CA housing prices.
  - jandrese 5y ago
    That only applies to "low rise" buildings, which would never solve the housing crisis anyway. The only direction for Californians to build is up unless they move away from the coast or adopt a subterranean lifestyle.
Scott_Sanderson 5y ago
I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!
- colpabar 5y ago
  >Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. You answered your own question. Housing costs coming down is a good thing for people who need housing, but it's not really a good thing for people who own valuable homes, and people who own valuable homes tend to have much more political power.
  - tr_user 5y ago
    Do they own valuable homes or do they own valuable land? I can see the land value increasing because it is now rezone-able and you can build multiple units worth on it.
  - neura 5y ago
    I feel that's mostly true, but there may be many other similar factors. If you make "affordable" housing ("for who?" is the correct question), then you have more people that can't afford to spend as much, while pushing out the people that spend more. Someone else stated it simply as "undesirables", which I think is the quick summation of your statement and other similar reasoning. It all comes down to "I get that people need a place to live, but they can find that somewhere else" or "we've got a good thing going here (for me, the politician)".
    - ajmurmann 5y ago
      Zoning usually gets decided on on a very local level. The people who show up to community meetings tend to be older, white home owners who don't want the value of their home to go down. Fear of "undesirables" of course also likely plays a role and when I've heard it in person, even that gets wrapped in fear of that bringing down home values and schools.
      - cudgy 5y ago
        Perhaps more white owners show up in majority white neighborhoods, but what evidence is there that white owners disproportionately show up to these meetings? I assume you can provide it based on this comment.
somethoughts 5y ago
I've also wondered if the high amount of income disparity in California is at least partially explained by the high amount of cost of living disparity in California. There is a high amount of population that lives in agricultural areas like the Central Valley where the cost of living is drastically lower than the very population dense cities. If you compare the people there to the relatively smaller number of high income earners who live in the excessively high cost cities of Los Angelos, San Francisco, etc. then on a graph its going to look unfair. Even though the house in the Central Valley might actually be much bigger and nicer if you are ok living in the suburbs/ex-urbs.
timcavel 5y ago
incomingpain 5y ago
Homeless being caused by a lack of homes doesn't really will out. The people camping on the side of the road don't have a downpayment and good paying job who could afford a house if only they existed because zoning is bad. The causes of homelessness is well understood now. The problem comes from ideology, not only is the fix ideologically opposed, the cause is ideologically imposed. Homelessness after many years or no growth or even the situation getting better started rising in 2014. LA county homelessness was roughly 40,000 in 2011, dropping in 2012, rising slightly for 13, 14. Overall pretty flat for several years straight. Then suddenly a huge increase in 2014. Basically rising every year since. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-homeless-point-in-time-count-qa-housing-20190604-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-homeless-p... So we know it's a policy that changed in 2014 and has been making the situation worse every year. A policy which hadn't been changing prior to 2014 but also a policy that is getting worse every year. https://foreignusa.com/california-state-minimum-wage/ https://foreignusa.com/california-state-minimum-wage/ Greece fell into this trap as well. You think you are doing a good thing with the best of intentions. Instead of helping people earn more, you are in fact creating homelessness.

jandrese 5y ago

The article starts out talking about homelessness, high housing prices, and people leaving the state in droves, but then pivots to pinning the high energy rates on green energy initiatives. California has such a huge housing deficit at this point that people really have no option except to move out. The point where they are losing the population equivalent of 3 mid size cities every year while still maintaining a housing crisis.

nomel 5y ago
> has such a huge housing deficit And, that housing deficit probably won't be filled with anything affordable. Starting 2023, title 24 requires solar panels that cover the full annual energy usage of the home, along with battery storage. But, guess that's a drop in the bucket for CA housing prices.
- jandrese 5y ago
  That only applies to "low rise" buildings, which would never solve the housing crisis anyway. The only direction for Californians to build is up unless they move away from the coast or adopt a subterranean lifestyle.

Scott_Sanderson 5y ago

I just don't understand why cities in California won't let go of single unit zoning. Single unit is the most expensive and least efficient zoning rule. Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. Ever visit a beautiful city like Paris, Copenhagen, Milan and wonder why we don't have that? It would be illegal to make the buildings they have under our zoning code and parking mandates!

colpabar 5y ago
>Getting rid of it would bring housing costs down. You answered your own question. Housing costs coming down is a good thing for people who need housing, but it's not really a good thing for people who own valuable homes, and people who own valuable homes tend to have much more political power.
- tr_user 5y ago
  Do they own valuable homes or do they own valuable land? I can see the land value increasing because it is now rezone-able and you can build multiple units worth on it.
- neura 5y ago
  I feel that's mostly true, but there may be many other similar factors. If you make "affordable" housing ("for who?" is the correct question), then you have more people that can't afford to spend as much, while pushing out the people that spend more. Someone else stated it simply as "undesirables", which I think is the quick summation of your statement and other similar reasoning. It all comes down to "I get that people need a place to live, but they can find that somewhere else" or "we've got a good thing going here (for me, the politician)".
  - ajmurmann 5y ago
    Zoning usually gets decided on on a very local level. The people who show up to community meetings tend to be older, white home owners who don't want the value of their home to go down. Fear of "undesirables" of course also likely plays a role and when I've heard it in person, even that gets wrapped in fear of that bringing down home values and schools.
    - cudgy 5y ago
      Perhaps more white owners show up in majority white neighborhoods, but what evidence is there that white owners disproportionately show up to these meetings? I assume you can provide it based on this comment.

somethoughts 5y ago

I've also wondered if the high amount of income disparity in California is at least partially explained by the high amount of cost of living disparity in California. There is a high amount of population that lives in agricultural areas like the Central Valley where the cost of living is drastically lower than the very population dense cities. If you compare the people there to the relatively smaller number of high income earners who live in the excessively high cost cities of Los Angelos, San Francisco, etc. then on a graph its going to look unfair. Even though the house in the Central Valley might actually be much bigger and nicer if you are ok living in the suburbs/ex-urbs.

timcavel 5y ago

incomingpain 5y ago

Homeless being caused by a lack of homes doesn't really will out. The people camping on the side of the road don't have a downpayment and good paying job who could afford a house if only they existed because zoning is bad. The causes of homelessness is well understood now. The problem comes from ideology, not only is the fix ideologically opposed, the cause is ideologically imposed. Homelessness after many years or no growth or even the situation getting better started rising in 2014. LA county homelessness was roughly 40,000 in 2011, dropping in 2012, rising slightly for 13, 14. Overall pretty flat for several years straight. Then suddenly a huge increase in 2014. Basically rising every year since. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-homeless-point-in-time-count-qa-housing-20190604-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-homeless-p... So we know it's a policy that changed in 2014 and has been making the situation worse every year. A policy which hadn't been changing prior to 2014 but also a policy that is getting worse every year. https://foreignusa.com/california-state-minimum-wage/ https://foreignusa.com/california-state-minimum-wage/ Greece fell into this trap as well. You think you are doing a good thing with the best of intentions. Instead of helping people earn more, you are in fact creating homelessness.